Thoughts?

[TigerCraig]

Yesterday we had a situation that raised a lot of questions. BTW I coach red.

Red player (large PI about 6 foot 4, 16 stone) crosses the line and starts running around to get closer to the posts with a little showboating. Blue player (quite a bit smaller) comes around into his path but with no real intention to tackle him.

The red player ran over the blue one - think Lomu/Catt and grounds the ball.

Referee disallows try and bins red player. Was a critical moment as score was 28-10 blue at the time, and blue scored 2 tries while the player (plus our captain - more later) was in the bin.

Chatting to the ref after the game he said he thought it was dangerous play as red was running excessively hard, could easily have just scored and that blue wasn't a real threat to stop him. I checked if there was a lifted elbow or knee but no, just running too hard.

Reason captain got sent to was one player said the decision was Bs, ref didn't know who so he told captain to produce someone or he would be sent. Captain honestly didn't know who it was and as he was walking off rhe guy who did say it went to the ref and owned up, but ref said too late, captains responsible so he goes

 

[damo]

What age are we talking?

If seniors or above U15, then I probably concur with the unfortunate comment made.

I also have strong reservations with punishing a captain as a representative of the actual culprit.

 

[SimonSmith]

BS call for my money

"Excessively hard" is just not anything you can support in law or interpretation. It's a moral judgement, and I don't like morals in rugby

 

[TigerCraig]

BTW this is open age men's rugby. The 'hard runner' is 41 years old - but did play league at a pretty high-level in his day

 

[damo]

Then it has all the makings of a dreadful decision.

All players need to protect themselves at all times from legal play. Running hard is legal play. If the defender was in a position to make a tackle the ball carrier is entitled to assume that he will try to tackle him.

 

[Dickie E]

Did the Blue player make an attempt to tackle (albeit a futile one) or did the Red player change his line to charge into the Blue player?

If the former, I agree with Damo & SS.

 

[crossref]

BS call for my money

"Excessively hard" is just not anything you can support in law or interpretation. It's a moral judgement, and I don't like morals in rugby

Which is exactly why the new law 9.24 is worrisome to me , as it takes us down that path

[LAWS]9.24 A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used[/LAWS].

 

[crossref]

The ref saw something dangerous .. it's hard for us , who weren't there , to gainsay him .

Did red charge unexpectedly into a blue player who didn't see him coming ? Was there any previous between the two players ?

The captains YC is definitely bs though

 

[Taff]

I can see I am going to be in the minority here, but I actually quite like both decisions. :wow:

I'm all for a hard game, but anything "excessive" is by definition ... excessive and probably dangerous. In the Lomu / Catt example, that doesn't mean to say I would have penalised Lomu, but I may have if there was a runt of a Full Back and Tank had changed position to target and steamroller him. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the BC carrier though; ie it would have to be very excessive and not just slightly excessive.

And to be clear this isn't a law change, because even the 2017 law book says

Foul Play is anything a player does .... that is against the letter and spirit of the laws of the game

As for the Captain copping the flack for a team-mate, I quite like that too. Imagine a player deliberately collapsing a Maul close to the line but nobody gets the number - it's happened to us all. The offender will definitely know he did it; some of the offending team will almost certainly know who did it. It may not be in the law book, but personally I would like to see the book authorise us to effectively say "OK gents. There's a yellow card card offence there but we didn't get the number. The culprit has a reasonable period to own up (5 seconds?) or the Captain is deemed responsible".

 

[TigerCraig]

The blue player was definitely moving into a position to stop improvement of the angle - game situation being that reds normal kicker was out and the stand in had missed 2 previous kickable conversions so even a few yards could make a difference. I don't think blue was really expecting to make a tackle, just probably expecting red to dot it dowm risk free. No change in angle by red,

 

[Ian_Cook]

The blue player was definitely moving into a position to stop improvement of the angle - game situation being that reds normal kicker was out and the stand in had missed 2 previous kickable conversions so even a few yards could make a difference. I don't think blue was really expecting to make a tackle, just probably expecting red to dot it dowm risk free. No change in angle by red,

Then the decision was complete BS.

 

[didds]

I also have strong reservations with punishing a captain as a representative of the actual culprit.

I also have strong reservations. To the extent its not even "reservatrions".

It a total and utter, nailed on NO-NO.

didds

 

[didds]

I can see I am going to be in the minority here, but I actually quite like both decisions. :wow:

I'm all for a hard game, but anything "excessive" is by definition ... excessive and probably dangerous. In the Lomu / Catt example, that doesn't mean to say I would have penalised Lomu, but I may have if there was a runt of a Full Back and Tank had changed position to target and steamroller him. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the BC carrier though; ie it would have to be very excessive and not just slightly excessive.

And to be clear this isn't a law change, because even the 2017 law book says

Foul Play is anything a player does .... that is against the letter and spirit of the laws of the game

As for the Captain copping the flack for a team-mate, I quite like that too. Imagine a player deliberately collapsing a Maul close to the line but nobody gets the number - it's happened to us all. The offender will definitely know he did it; some of the offending team will almost certainly know who did it. It may not be in the law book, but personally I would like to see the book authorise us to effectively say "OK gents. There's a yellow card card offence there but we didn't get the number. The culprit has a reasonable period to own up (5 seconds?) or the Captain is deemed responsible".

Its not unknown in the weeds for the captain to be the only person prepared to pt his hand up and do all the crap that "captaining" a lower side (in particular) entails. Its also not unknown for the captain to not have the total support of his team mates in that possition. Having to totall7y crap idea like this is a red flag to those that wish to make a lmockery of the guy with the "badge" and a good way to ensure that nobody will volunteer for the position to be left in tjhis position.

And even without the above caveats, having dismised the captain for these reasons - who is captain now? Who in their right mind is ngooing to stick their hand up and volunteer to be stand in capatin, in the knowledge they could end up being dismissed for somehting somegbody else might have done - or even in the event of a refreeing mistrake (apparently they happen) somebody hasn;t done?

So nobody steps forward to be captain - what as a ref are you going to do now? Pick a number at randon amd appoint them "captain" for them to dismiss any such responsibilities? call the game off?

And similarly, what are you going to do before the match if you call for skipper for PMB and toss and a team said they don;t have a captain cos nobody wants to potentially be sent off for something they didn't do etc? Call the game off before you even start? You could I suppose award the toss to the other side - but what if they also have said they don;t have a captain for these reasons?

Its just an unworkable suggestion.

- - - Updated - - -

Then the decision was complete BS.

and I agree.


didds

 

[Taff]

Its not unknown in the weeds for the captain to be the only person prepared to pt his hand up and do all the crap that "captaining" a lower side (in particular) entails. Its also not unknown for the captain to not have the total support of his team mates in that position. Having to totally crap idea like this is a red flag to those that wish to make a mockery of the guy with the "badge" and a good way to ensure that nobody will volunteer for the position to be left in this position.

Not my experience. In fact most (if not all) of the teams I've played in, the Captain is usually the best player in the team, and certainly not a player you would want to lose.

... So nobody steps forward to be captain - what as a ref are you going to do now? Pick a number at randon amd appoint them "captain" for them to dismiss any such responsibilities? call the game off?

Why call it off? It's not essential to have anybody as captain.

... Its just an unworkable suggestion.

So the alternative is that a YC offence goes unpunished. If you're not happy with that, then what do you suggest?

 

[SimonSmith]

Not my experience. In fact most (if not all) of the teams I've played in, the Captain is usually the best player in the team, and certainly not a player you would want to lose.


Why call it off? It's not essential to have anybody as captain.


So the alternative is that a YC offence goes unpunished. If you're not happy with that, then what do you suggest?

You're happy that an innocent player gets the 10 minutes. That's abhorrent to me.

 

[OB..]

On the information given, I would have labelled both decisions as Critical Incident law errors.

We have a four stage marking for management: G(ood), M(inor)D(evelopment), N(eeds) D(evelopment), S(ignificant) D(evelopment). I have never used SD, but I suspect this referee would have broken my duck.

 

[OB..]

So the alternative is that a YC offence goes unpunished. If you're not happy with that, then what do you suggest?

All you can do is get the captain to warn his team-mates against future transgressions and award the penalty.

 

[Taff]

You're happy that an innocent player gets the 10 minutes. That's abhorrent to me.

I run a business. If any of my staff f**k something up, nobody has a problem with holding me responsible for their actions. What's the difference in principle? In practice there is no comparison; I could lose my house, the captain would get to sit down for 10 minutes.

I'm not saying I would YC a captain today, but I for one would like to see the law book changed so that we could in future.

 

[OB..]

I run a business. If any of my staff f**k something up, nobody has a problem with holding me responsible for their actions. What's the difference in principle? In practice there is no comparison; I could lose my house, the captain would get to sit down for 10 minutes.

I'm not saying I would YC a captain today, but I for one would like to see the law book changed so that we could in future.

I reject your premise. If one of your staff steals from the company, are you held responsible? No.

 

[dave_clark]

I run a business. If any of my staff f**k something up, nobody has a problem with holding me responsible for their actions. What's the difference in principle?

i suspect you already know the answer to your question?